I don’t think many people will be scratching their heads about the coup in Thailand, at least if the entire ordeal is about what we think it is. The events leading up to this make it clear. The impasse of Thai politics in which Prime Minister Shinawatra is accused of corruption yet hugely wins polls anyway, leading to mass protests, has caused one election already to be ruled invalid. Since then not much has happened, but it has created a certain political vacuum in which case both sides are preparing for a repeat of 1992.

Perhaps the army really is rebelling now because they want to restore order and pave the way for democracy. Or, perhaps its leader, Gen. Sonthi, was just fired by Thaksin earlier in the day. Either way, it appears that they only have control over Bangkok where Thaksin is hugely unpopular. Forces loyal to Thaksin are currently meeting outside of Bangkok in order to plan their next move. What it will be is uncertain.

From a democratization standpoint, military coups have at times been effective in “restoring democracy” when they are used to overthrow a particular leader and establish a short-lived interim government. Yet I am skeptical out of necessity that this is truly the intention (even though it will likely be the end result), and it is actually due to the personal conflict between the prime minister and the general. There is another standpoint, however, that I am inclined to believe…

The key here will be what the king does. Again, from a democratization standpoint, the king is a bizarre institution that can either be incredibly good or incredibly bad. In Thailand’s case, the king is a symbol of unity; the tiebreaker. Whenever there is a political impasse or crisis he steps in and makes it all better. He can do this because as an institution he is trustworthy and loved by the people because of what he does and represents. Everyone else is trash when compared to the king.

So if the king tells Sondhi to step down, he will. Military generals in the past — 1992 — have been cowed simply by his will alone. Or he will serve at the king’s pleasure. This means that in fact that king would have known this was going to happen and in fact an interim government will be set up with ministers who are very close to him so as to ensure that democracy is in fact restored.

Statements coming from the military team have indicated that they have pledged their loyalty to the king, something that would be customary to do. What happens next is the king’s to decide. If he goes along with it, the rest will fall in line and a potentially bloody crisis will be averted.